Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

etcdserver: fix panic when checking IsLearner of removed member #18606

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jscissr
Copy link

@jscissr jscissr commented Sep 19, 2024

Previously, calling s.IsLearner() when the local node is no longer a member panics. There was an attempt to fix this by first checking IsMemberExist(), but this is not a correct fix because the member could be removed between the two calls. Instead of panicking when the member was removed, IsLearner() should return false. A node which is not a member is also not a learner.

There was a similar concurrency bug when accessing the IsLearner property of a member, which will panic with a nil pointer access error if the member is removed between the IsMemberExist() and Member() calls.

I did not add a unit test because it's basically impossible to test for such concurrency bugs.

Previously, calling s.IsLearner() when the local node is no longer a
member panics. There was an attempt to fix this by first checking
IsMemberExist(), but this is not a correct fix because the member could
be removed between the two calls. Instead of panicking when the member
was removed, IsLearner() should return false. A node which is not a
member is also not a learner.

There was a similar concurrency bug when accessing the IsLearner
property of a member, which will panic with a nil pointer access error
if the member is removed between the IsMemberExist() and Member() calls.

Signed-off-by: Jan Schär <jan@monogon.tech>
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jscissr
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ahrtr for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

Hi @jscissr. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a etcd-io member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.79%. Comparing base (ce07474) to head (448ef94).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Current head 448ef94 differs from pull request most recent head d61be85

Please upload reports for the commit d61be85 to get more accurate results.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
server/etcdserver/api/membership/cluster.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
server/etcdserver/server.go 75.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
server/etcdserver/api/v3rpc/interceptor.go 77.60% <100.00%> (+3.12%) ⬆️
server/etcdserver/api/membership/cluster.go 88.27% <0.00%> (-0.26%) ⬇️
server/etcdserver/server.go 81.28% <75.00%> (-0.36%) ⬇️

... and 17 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #18606      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.81%   68.79%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35519    35516       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        24441    24434       -7     
  Misses       9648     9648              
- Partials     1430     1434       +4     

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ce07474...d61be85. Read the comment docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants